Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Won't Bow to Chinese Censors
truthsearch writes "Jimmy Wales has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive Wikipedia entries. He challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing. Wikipedia has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia. 'We occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up, which is that we stand for the freedom for information.'"
Considering China's regulations I don't think it'd be possible for Mr. Wales to accomplish censoring all of Wikipedia from what's on the list from China's Article 19 of censorship policy. This that China requires to be censored:
- violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution;
- jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation's unity;
- harming the honor or the interests of the nation;
- inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples;
- disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions;
- spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability;
- spreading obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime;
- insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties;
- inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order;
- conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and
- any other content prohibited by law or rules.
That last one (#11) is my favorite. Kind of open ended, eh? Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.In other news all Chinese residents will see a new homepage for Wikipedia. Just another reason why Tor should stay up and the recent news about it being used as a child pornography shield is terrible.
*All information in this post was gathered via irony.
My work here is dung.
They simply believe that access to some information is better than access to no information. It's as if you had a choice between eating crap for the rest of your life, or eating nothing. Some people would choose to eat crap and maybe live a while, while others might choose to eat nothing and starve to death.
The companies named are businesses which by definition are in it for profit. Wikipedia, as a foundation has the luxury of standing for a good cause without having to explain it to its shareholders.
I'm willing to stand up and cheer reservedly for Wikipedia if this continues.
My only concern is that, once Wikipedia makes its stand, the Chinese government decides that, well, yes, in the interest of freedom of the Internet, it will let Wikipedia continue to operate - and then start "correcting" Wikipedia's entries to the point of anything that disagrees with "official" truth is useless.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Wikipedia is non-profit, where the others (Google, Yahoo, etc) are profit seeking organizations (at least, they're listed on market exchanges).
So while wikipedia can take the high ground and just not exist in China, for-profit companies have to justify this to their shareholders. If you were invested in Google and heard they decided not to expand into the large & growing market of China... well you can see how one could begin to question if the company's leadership had the shareholder's interests in mind.
While I don't like the fact that places like Google and Yahoo allow censorship, I do understand the reasoning. Censorship by default is hard to do on the internet. There is always information popping up in new places, and it takes time to find, review and finally censor it. So by providing the Chinese ppl w/ access to a good search tool, they can use their ingenuity to find the information they want. It also would be unfair for them not to have access to simple, non-controversial material that they benefit from, and which they would have a difficult time finding w/o a good search engine.
However, Wikipedia is more than a tool for finding information. It IS information, and one of it's highest goals needs to be accuracy. (let's not debate accuracy vs. Wiki's here tho)
If they were to censor information that is valid... well it would be incredibly wrong. You can't have just a 'little' bit of censorship of information in an encyclopedia, it violates the whole spirit of the thing.
It's easy to be heroic when you have nothing to lose. It's like instead of rescuing the princess from a fire-breathing dragon, Jimmy is rescuing her from a field mouse.
I mean, yes, it's the right thing to do to rescue princesses, but lets not be throwing the word 'heroic' around for no good reason.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Those folk in China are really experiencing the gift of freedom of information right now, aren't they? We're so uptight about upholding an ideal that they get *nothing*.
And hopefully that *nothing* will help to spur social change for the Chinese, rather than putting a bandage over the problem by allowing censored content.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
In the article, he says he doesn't know why China would block Wikipedia, given their position on neutrality.
t ests_of_1989a ng=zh-CN&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=T iananmen+Square&spell=1e =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I'm not if he's being intentionally dense, or if he honestly belives that the Chinese government is interested in neutrality.
If so, I'd ask Mr. Wales to compare the following three links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_pro
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&inl
http://www.google.com/search?q=Tiananmen+Square&i
Just a thought...
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
For all this talk of shareholders shying away from a company refusing business opportunities, and therefore it's "easy" for a non-profit to take the higher moral ground ...
Donaters shy away from a non-profit that DOESN'T take the higher moral ground.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
(disclaimer - I am singling out the Microsoft/Google approach to China, it is in no way intended to represent the overall efforts of American businesses in China, especially the loathsome actions of Cisco and Yahoo.)
The problem here is that Wikipedia's approach accomplishes nothing - although neither does it compromise the organization's stated principles. Microsoft and Google's approach of censoring on request has still created a raging torrent of information within, into, and out of China, one that the Chinese government can only barely police. Wikipedia's outdated reactionary protest model will not coax China to change anything, after all, China has the resources to churn out competing products with ease. Microsoft and Google are showing China the rest of the world, and giving Chinese dissidents great, albeit limited, tools for proactively attacking totalitarianism.
I'm trying to understand what your point is. Is it OK for Google to do bad things, because it is "less easy"? Does it being "easy" for Wikipedia mean its actions have less merit?
It's a strange set of morals you appear to be describing. We should live our lives based on what's easiest? Is that what you are saying? If doing the right thing is difficult, it's OK not to do it?
Many people find it hard to resist sexual temptation. So, is it OK to have an affair, and then lie to your wife about it, because it's easier than telling the truth or not having the affair?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Interesting equivalence there between practicing holistic medicine and lobbing missiles into a city. -5 insightful on that one.
-- Alastair
One of the website was for Al-Manar TV. Where is freedom of press when the facts are uncomfortable for the administration? There are a lot of sites soliciting funds for Israel starting with AIPAC but none of them are shutdown. There are always two sides to a war and if we dont want to be neutral and want to choose a side thats fine but we should be morally honest about it and stop fooling the American people.
BTW the US has become a police state on the issue of Israel. You cannot criticize the Israeli government without being labelled anti-semite which is probably the worst disservice to to the larger Jewish community as I have met many Jews both inside and outside Israel who do not agree to the Israeli governments policy of de facto apartheid. Most secular Israelis who have lived in Israel for generations would have no problem giving the Arabs equal rights but they are outshouted by the vocal minority which migrated recently from the USSR and who have been granted land in the settlements. Of course these settlers (most of whom were dirt poor before they got free grants of land ) dont want to leave the West Bank and go back to a life of poverty in Israeli cities. If it was a choice between my family being poor and Arab families being poor I would make the same choice.
But the external world should understand these issues and realize that Israeli society is not a monolith. Just like we try to promote change in Iran by supporting the reformers we should try to promote change in Israel by supporting the Labour and other pro peace parties (if needed with covert funds - it would be still cheaper than having to spend billions on defending a small country in an hostile neighbourhood)
**Life is too short to be serious**
Holistic medicine is a voluntary and chosen practice, people who choose to practice it do so upon their own beliefs and choices, you can no more claim it to be murder than to say companies that sell butter or cars are killing people because they cause increased rates of heart attacks or car accidents.
Your contention that goverments inherently attempt to censor information contrary to their intrests holds weight and is exhibited consistently throughout history, one has only to look at wars to note how often... and important the practice has been used.
the real question is extent and content. No system can be completely "good" and/or "benevolent" as the very act of censorship restricts the rights of some for the benefit of others, however speech in concerns that render grave or immenent and real danger to a multi-tude of people are commonly restricted under what is generaly understood to be a common sense and practical public safety concern.
When the public safety aspect is over-extended beyond the real of "real" danger we begin to see the abuse... which is nearly inevitble, but the issue is the extent. China is without much question a hallmark of severly over extended censorship which goes ridiculously further beyond the bounds of reasonable public safety in comparison to the US.
To put the two on equivilent terms is spurious and intelectually insulting.
Hezbollah and other organizations like it, or closely affiliated with it... actively procure funds and engage in violent attacks without forwarning on civilian populations againts the wishes of their domestic populations. While they enjoy support of their respective publics as a symbolic resistence to the west, their methods are generally NOT supported and regularly denounced by those communities.
Falon Gong simple DOES NOT COMPARE.
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
Yes, they're all terrorist orgs when they create terror to cause political change. Hezbollah is certainly a terrorist org by any definition.
Give me a fucking break. "McArthur era"? Don't you mean McCarthy era? Which is yet another bullshit comparison.
Even that Mandela (who you can't even spell) comparison is bullshit. You want the ultimate form of your bullshit? The American revolutionaries who ditched the British were "terrorists", too. There is a difference between terrorizing civilians and terrorizing military or political leaders. And Hezbollah is terrorist of the worst kind.
And you are helping them with your bullshit. Don't hand me some more bullshit about how that fact is somehow something I saw on CNN. Just because Bush has equated the Terror War with anything he wants to do doesn't mean the reality he's hijacked isn't still true. Saying that Hezbollah is just some "bad apples" is a disgusting lie that ignores their sworn mission to kill everyone who stops them from taking over Israel, Lebanon, anything they think god told them is theirs. And you are working with them in their campaign to gain political success. You're sick. And you won't get any more help from me validating you by arguing with you, when you can't even get simple facts straight and make outrageous lies about Hezbollah terrorists.
--
make install -not war